The Medicare for America Plan, HR 2452 (DeLauro and Schakowsky), gives all Americans a choice of Medicare or private insurance. Individuals can choose public coverage through Medicare or private coverage through their employer or private coverage through a Medicare Advantage plan.

There are four Public Option bills – S 3 (Cardin), S 1261 and HR 2462 (Merkeley and Richmond), S 981 and HR 2000 (Bennett, Kaine and Delgado), and HR 2085 and S 1003 (Schakowsky and Whitehouse) . They give participants in the Exchanges (like Covered California) the option to choose a plan offering Medicare coverage. Some increase premium assistance and cost sharing reductions; others do not. All leave existing coverage through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and employer plans unchanged.

There are two different Medicare for All Plans in Congress: Senator Sanders S 1129 and Representative Jayapal’s HR 1384. They are comparable, but with a few salient differences. Both cover all Americans for a comprehensive set of benefits with no cost sharing or premiums, using a Medicare-like payment program. Both eliminate all employer and individual private insurance and the existing Medicare program and most of the Medicaid program as well (Senator Sanders retains it for institutional long term care – i.e. nursing homes. Neither eliminates the VA programs for veterans or the HIS program for Native Americans.

The United States of America has been a beacon of hope – starting with the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the founding of the United States of America and the enduring principles of the United States Constitution. We fought a Civil War to end the unspeakable crime of slavery. We welcomed immigrants fleeing poverty, persecution and violence.

We also have many episodes of our history that we must remember with shame, and we must acknowledge our grievous harm to many innocents.

I have been re-reading the stirring words and the history leading up to our Declaration of Independence and reflecting how our founding fathers were prepared to lay everything on the line – their lives and their fortunes – to bring us the freedoms we enjoy, and may take too much and too comfortably for granted today.

The Democratic debates featured a split between those supporting Universal Health Coverage and those supporting Medicare for All. There is a huge difference that needs to be understood as voters begin to assess these issues being espoused by the candidates. There is a vast amount of misinformation being spread on all sides that really confuses people.

There were 20 well-spoken and thoughtful candidates – any of whom would be a huge step forward from President Trump. The debates were thoughtful, informed and respectful – a far cry from the name-calling and school yard bullying and ridicule that characterized President Trump and his Republican challengers in 2016.

http://laschoolreport.com/los-angeles-voters-roundly-defeat-parcel-tax-leaving-lausd-on-shaky-financial-footing/

 

The 16¢ per square foot parcel tax was badly defeated – getting only 46% of the vote when it needed 66% (due to Prop 13). It would have raised close to $500 million to offset the costs of the recent contract negotiated between LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District) and the teacher’s union (UTLA).

President Trump is proposing to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs of 5% growing to 25% on Mexico to deter illegal immigration from Central America. This will hurt our economy, and Mexico’s economy because we are each other’s largest trading partners. Citizens and businesses in Texas and California will be particularly badly hurt by the tariffs. The impacts will be felt on prices in the supermarket, the price of cars and many other consumer goods.

Every elected President has an agenda for the nation. Every President swears an oath to uphold the constitution in so doing. All Presidents get sued, but no President within my memory or knowledge has so consistently violated the nation’s laws and its very constitutional framework as President Trump has over the past 2.5 years.

Just the other day I read a news blurb about an election reapportionment case from my home state of Ohio. Reading further, one of the chief counsel was a remarkable woman I’d worked closely with more than 40 years ago in Boston. So I downloaded it for a little light reading. The opinion is 300 pages long and fascinating reading. It highlights the extremes of partisan gerrymandering, and the efforts of a thoughtful three-judge court and highly technically proficient counsel to assess and then remedy it.